Loading ToolBench
Compares hardware visual specifications, DoF dimensions, and form factors for humanoid robots and similar hardware products.
Single tool with critical definition gaps. Tool name 'compare_visual_specs' lacks action verb clarity (compare is weak; should be 'analyze_', 'evaluate_', or 'get_comparison_'). Tool description exists (54 chars) but is generic and does not explain WHEN to use it, WHAT it returns, or dependencies. No output schema documented. No error handling or recovery guidance. No parameter validation or constraints. Fails 6 of 7 critical checks in Dimension 1.
Compares hardware visual specifications, DoF dimensions, and form factors.
Input parameters 'product_a' and 'product_b' have NO descriptions in schema. LLM cannot infer what values are valid, expected format, or constraints.
No output schema documented. LLM cannot plan downstream operations or extract required fields. Rubric requires documented return types for all A+ tools.
Tool name 'compare_visual_specs' does not start with a clear action verb. 'Compare' is weak and ambiguous. Should be 'analyze_visual_specs', 'evaluate_hardware_specs', or 'get_spec_comparison'. Rubric baseline: 90% of A+ tools start with action verb.
Tool description (54 chars) is too generic. Does not explain WHEN to use it, WHAT it returns, or prerequisites. Rubric requires 10 - 1024 chars with explicit WHAT/WHEN/dependencies. Current description fails to guide LLM selection.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-23 | F | 27 | 2026-07-28+ | v2 |
No error handling or recovery guidance. If comparison fails or products are not found, LLM receives no actionable error message. Rubric requires: 'User not found. Try search_users() with a partial name.' pattern.